3 ms·

Key quote: "The most important part of the answer is to remember the reasons for America’s success in the 1950s and 1960s. Government programmes, intended to s

Key quote: "The most important part of the answer is to remember the reasons for America’s success in the 1950s and 1960s. Government programmes, intended to surpass the Soviet Union in space and weapons systems, galvanised investment in education, research and engineering across a broad range of technologies. This ultimately gave rise to Silicon Valley, where it was infused by a spirit of free inquiry, vigorous competition and a healthy capitalist incentive to make money. It was supercharged by an immigration system that welcomed promising minds from every corner of the planet." Even as local youth education was bungled, the flow of highly skilled immigrants and top-notch universities for wealthy and/or foreign students, helped maintain the lead. Just look at the founders, key techies and CEOs - rare to find a WASP. One key issue for China is that despite laxer immigration policies it is not an inclusive culture, it is very hard for foreigners to snap into a Chinese company. Language being the first obvious block. Environmental problems, free speech add to the mix - but, again, the US is hellbent on destroying those USPs (EPA under threat, ...).

brabel 9y ago
China has over 1 billion inhabitants and many millions living abroad which might just have enough incentive to move back now or soon. Immigration for them is not going to make as much difference as in the US.
- qiqing 9y ago
  China does have immigration-friendly policy, but the policies were mostly active in the 90's, largely targeted at Chinese-speakers. These policies included major tax breaks for Chinese speakers with advanced degrees if they established permanent residence (green card) in China, including being able to use that tax refund to buy real estate. Many who took advantage of the policies had left to study abroad in the 70's and 80's, but got jobs in their new home countries. Others were a generation removed. It looks different from US immigration, but if anything, I believe the expectations of the "sea turtles" (pun for returning ex-pat) have spurred a lot of the systemic changes that have been improving China.
  - whatyoucantsay 9y ago
    > largely targeted at Chinese-speakers. These policies included major tax breaks for Chinese speakers with advanced degrees It's not about being a Chinese speaker. It's about ethno-nationalism or racism, depending upon one's perspective. Merely speaking Chinese fluently isn't nearly enough for a racially European or African person to gain Chinese citizenship. The total number of those who have ever done so is less than the number of people the UK nationalises each week. Even the green card is nearly unobtainable. Dashan could get one but the vast majority of expats who have spent a decade in China, marred a PRC national, and started a family cannot.
    - qiqing 9y ago
      If you know a lot of people's personal experiences getting denied in modern day, I'd love to learn more! I don't personally know a lot of people of European or African ancestry trying in the first place, at least in modern day. However, during WW II, there were many European Jewish refugees who became my family's neighbors in Shanghai, at a time when shipfuls of them were being turned away by the U.S. (Our neighbors were denied a visa to the U.S. at that time.) There was another previous wave during Russian pogroms. Most people I've heard of getting green cards are of Chinese or mixed East Asian / Southeast Asian ancestry, and have an advanced STEM degree. I heard the scoring systems weighs Ph.D.'s and M.S.'s differently, and that computer science and EE gets you more points. I haven't heard of people getting assigned different weights depending on how Chinese their ancestry is. On the other hand, you'd probably have a hard time telling the difference between a Korean and a Chinese northerner who lives near the Korean border, as well as the difference between a Vietnamese person, and a Chinese southerner who lives near that border. We're all basically distant cousins.
      - whatyoucantsay 9y ago
        > On the other hand, you'd probably have a hard time telling the difference between a Korean and a Chinese northerner who lives near the Korean border, as well as the difference between a Vietnamese person, and a Chinese southerner who lives near that border." Not once they start talking! I'd never mistake a Korean for a Dongbeiren!
lainga 9y ago
What did the US bungle about youth education in the 50's and 60's? My memory is limited to New Math and standardized tests of more recent decades.
- shadowtree 9y ago
  Right - I meant bungled since then. Public education around tech is simply not good (on average), higher education very expensive. Hence foreigner have a leg up, as they get their BAs, MSc at home, far cheaper, then move to the US for the jobs. Student debt is a very US phenomenon.
refurb 9y ago
Does anybody do any fact checking anymore? The claim is that the 1950's and 1960's success was due to a immigration system that "welcomed promising minds from every corner of the planet". Bullshit. Look at the percentage of Americans who were immigrants in the 1950-60's - 5-6%. What is it now? 12-14%?[1] So in fact, there are more immigrants in the US than back in the utopia of the '50-60's. Once again, a nice theory, but absolutely false. [1]https://www.capsweb.org/todays-news/record-51-million-immigrants-8-years-will-account-82-us-growth https://www.capsweb.org/todays-news/record-51-million-immigr...
- graeme 9y ago
  You actually didn’t address the theory. The claim was about welcoming “promising minds”. Presumably that means top acientists, engineers, etc The current systme in America is renowned for being very difficult to get in to on a merit basis. Was this different in the 1950s? Perhaps. Also note thatbwhen considering america in the 1950’s, you’d need to look at immigration levels in prior decades. There’s a lag time for kids to grow up. I don’t know if the theory is right or not. And you,ve certainly provided some data to show it *mayg be wrong. But it’s far from conclusive.
  - refurb 9y ago
    I would point you towards the "Immigration Act of 1990", which created a number of ways for highly skilled workers to immigrate to the US. Before that, a lot of the US immigration was based on family reunification.
- shadowtree 9y ago
  Percentages work in all kinds of directions: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time?width=1000&height=850&iframe=true https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/imm... Qualified immigration vs. illegal vs. unqualified would be a very separate discussion. The claim is worded correctly though, even from your viewpoint, no? "welcomed promising minds" vs. indiscriminate immigration and its current backlash that hits "promising minds".

brabel 9y ago

China has over 1 billion inhabitants and many millions living abroad which might just have enough incentive to move back now or soon. Immigration for them is not going to make as much difference as in the US.

qiqing 9y ago
China does have immigration-friendly policy, but the policies were mostly active in the 90's, largely targeted at Chinese-speakers. These policies included major tax breaks for Chinese speakers with advanced degrees if they established permanent residence (green card) in China, including being able to use that tax refund to buy real estate. Many who took advantage of the policies had left to study abroad in the 70's and 80's, but got jobs in their new home countries. Others were a generation removed. It looks different from US immigration, but if anything, I believe the expectations of the "sea turtles" (pun for returning ex-pat) have spurred a lot of the systemic changes that have been improving China.
- whatyoucantsay 9y ago
  > largely targeted at Chinese-speakers. These policies included major tax breaks for Chinese speakers with advanced degrees It's not about being a Chinese speaker. It's about ethno-nationalism or racism, depending upon one's perspective. Merely speaking Chinese fluently isn't nearly enough for a racially European or African person to gain Chinese citizenship. The total number of those who have ever done so is less than the number of people the UK nationalises each week. Even the green card is nearly unobtainable. Dashan could get one but the vast majority of expats who have spent a decade in China, marred a PRC national, and started a family cannot.
  - qiqing 9y ago
    If you know a lot of people's personal experiences getting denied in modern day, I'd love to learn more! I don't personally know a lot of people of European or African ancestry trying in the first place, at least in modern day. However, during WW II, there were many European Jewish refugees who became my family's neighbors in Shanghai, at a time when shipfuls of them were being turned away by the U.S. (Our neighbors were denied a visa to the U.S. at that time.) There was another previous wave during Russian pogroms. Most people I've heard of getting green cards are of Chinese or mixed East Asian / Southeast Asian ancestry, and have an advanced STEM degree. I heard the scoring systems weighs Ph.D.'s and M.S.'s differently, and that computer science and EE gets you more points. I haven't heard of people getting assigned different weights depending on how Chinese their ancestry is. On the other hand, you'd probably have a hard time telling the difference between a Korean and a Chinese northerner who lives near the Korean border, as well as the difference between a Vietnamese person, and a Chinese southerner who lives near that border. We're all basically distant cousins.
    - whatyoucantsay 9y ago
      > On the other hand, you'd probably have a hard time telling the difference between a Korean and a Chinese northerner who lives near the Korean border, as well as the difference between a Vietnamese person, and a Chinese southerner who lives near that border." Not once they start talking! I'd never mistake a Korean for a Dongbeiren!

lainga 9y ago

What did the US bungle about youth education in the 50's and 60's? My memory is limited to New Math and standardized tests of more recent decades.

shadowtree 9y ago
Right - I meant bungled since then. Public education around tech is simply not good (on average), higher education very expensive. Hence foreigner have a leg up, as they get their BAs, MSc at home, far cheaper, then move to the US for the jobs. Student debt is a very US phenomenon.

refurb 9y ago

Does anybody do any fact checking anymore? The claim is that the 1950's and 1960's success was due to a immigration system that "welcomed promising minds from every corner of the planet". Bullshit. Look at the percentage of Americans who were immigrants in the 1950-60's - 5-6%. What is it now? 12-14%?[1] So in fact, there are more immigrants in the US than back in the utopia of the '50-60's. Once again, a nice theory, but absolutely false. [1]https://www.capsweb.org/todays-news/record-51-million-immigrants-8-years-will-account-82-us-growth https://www.capsweb.org/todays-news/record-51-million-immigr...

graeme 9y ago
You actually didn’t address the theory. The claim was about welcoming “promising minds”. Presumably that means top acientists, engineers, etc The current systme in America is renowned for being very difficult to get in to on a merit basis. Was this different in the 1950s? Perhaps. Also note thatbwhen considering america in the 1950’s, you’d need to look at immigration levels in prior decades. There’s a lag time for kids to grow up. I don’t know if the theory is right or not. And you,ve certainly provided some data to show it *mayg be wrong. But it’s far from conclusive.
- refurb 9y ago
  I would point you towards the "Immigration Act of 1990", which created a number of ways for highly skilled workers to immigrate to the US. Before that, a lot of the US immigration was based on family reunification.
shadowtree 9y ago
Percentages work in all kinds of directions: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time?width=1000&height=850&iframe=true https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/imm... Qualified immigration vs. illegal vs. unqualified would be a very separate discussion. The claim is worded correctly though, even from your viewpoint, no? "welcomed promising minds" vs. indiscriminate immigration and its current backlash that hits "promising minds".